Disberry’s contention of opting for snail mail over the digital sphere for her retirement info was met with the committee’s counter: she could’ve chosen e-communication. Furthermore, while e-deceptions can span continents, tangible mail pilferage “demands boots on the ground,” they highlighted.
Moreover, the mere occurrence of a theft doesn’t insinuate a guardian’s misstep. Drawing parallels with a 2012 case, Foster v. PPG Industries Inc., they emphasized that a mere fraudulent drain isn’t a carte blanche for restitution.
Alight’s modus operandi, they championed, was above board, devoid of warning bells. “Shouldn’t there be a beacon for users stranded outside their accounts?” they asserted. Alight’s double authentication, demanding personal info followed by mailing a PIN, was reasonable – especially to an address unchanged since ’08.
Legal eagles from all sides are yet to make their voices heard on this matter.
